G.R. No. 204990

 

QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE: CIRCUMSTANCE: ROBBERY IN BAND INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW Ramon Amparo y Ibañez vs. People of the Philippines G.R. No. 204990, February 22, 2017 Leonen, J.

DOCTRINE: Robbery is the taking, with the intent to gain, of personal property belonging to another by use of force, violence or intimidation. Under Article 294 (5) in relation to Article Article 295, 295, and and Articl Article e 296 of the Revised Revised Penal Penal Code, robbe robbery ry in band band is committed when four (4) or more malefactors take part in the robbery. All members are punished as principals for any assault committed by the band, unless it can be proven that the accused took steps to prevent the commission of the crime. Even if  the the crim crime e is comm commit itte ted d by se seve vera rall malef malefac acto tors rs in a moto motor r vehi vehicl cle e on a publ public ic highway, the crime is still classiied as robbery in band, not highway robbery or brigandage, It is highway robbery only when it can be proven that the malefactors primarily organized themselves for the purpose of committing that crime.  Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, in the absence of any mitigating or aggravating circumstance, the minimum penalty shall be within the range of the penalty next lower in degree, prision mayor minimum, or from six (6) years and one (1) day to eight (8) years. The maximum of the penalty shall be within the range of  the medium period of prision mayor medium, or from eight (8) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day to nine (9) years and four (4) months.

FACTS: Information was iled against Ahmed Alcubar y Sabiron (Alcubar), Roberto Guarino y Capnao Capnao (Guarin (Guarino), o), Juanit Juanito o Salmeo Salmeo y Jacob Jacob (Salme (Salmeo), o), and Ramon Ramon Amparo Amparo y Iban Iban ez (Amparo) for robbery. The alleged event happened on April 26, 2007, at the City of Manila, according to the information iled. It said that all the accused conspired and confederated together and helped one another armed with deadly bladed weapons and therefore in band, with intent of gain and by means of force, violence and intimidation, that is, by boar bo ardi ding ng a pass passen enge gerr jeep jeepne ney. y. They They poke poked d sa said id arms arms upon upon Raymo Raymond nd Ig Igna naci cio, o, and and announced the holdup, robbed and carried away his Nokia 6680 worth P14,000.00. The accused were arraigned and they pleaded "not guilty." Ignacio identiied Alcubar as the man who poked a knife at him, and Guarino as the one who announced the hold-up. He also identiied Salmeo and Amparo as the ones who sat in the front seat beside the driver. He admitted that he did knowthat what andplace Amparo doing at the time of the incident. inci dent. However, However , henot testiied heSalmeo saw them theirwere knives on the jeepney bench

 

when the police ired the warning shot. Amparo, on the other hand, testiied that on April 26, 2007, he was in Carriedo, Quiapo, Manila, working as a parking attendant when a person he did not know arrived and arrested him. Later, he was brought to the Philippine National Police Anti-Carnapping Unit where he saw Ignacio for the irst time. Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 34 rendered a Decision, inding the accused guilty of robbery in band. All the accused appealed to the Court of Appeals. Amparo, in particular, argued that he and Salmeo should be acquitted since the witnesses for the prosecution did not testify that they performed any act in furtherance of the robbery. the Court of Appeals rendered its Decision dismissing the appeal.

ISSUE: 1. Whet Whethe herr the the tria triall cour courtt and and the the Cour Courtt of Appe Appeal alss erre erred d in in indi ding ng tha thatt peti petiti tion oner er was was guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of robbery with band. 2. Whet Whethe herr or not not the the Tria Triall Cour Courtt erre erred d in sen sente tenc ncin ing g Ampa Amparo ro of of inde indete term rmin inat ate e pris prison on term ranging from four (4) years and two (2) months of prision of  prision correccional  correccional  as  as minimum to ten (10) years of prision of prision mayor  maximum,  maximum, as maximum

RULING: 1. NO, NO, the Tri Trial al Cour Courtt is corr correc ectt in find findin ing g that that peti petiti tion oner er was was g gui uilt lty y beyon beyond d reas reason onab able le doubt o the crime o robbery with band. Robbery is the taking, with the intent to gain, o personal property belonging to another by use o orce, violence or intimidation. Under Article 294 (5) in relation to Article  295, and Article 296 o the Revised Penal Code, robbery in band is committed when our (4) or more maleactors take part in the robbery. All members are punished as principals or any  assault committed by the band, unless it can be proven that the accused took steps to prevent  the commission o thehighway, crime. Even the crime is committed byrobbery several maleact maleactors a motor  vehicle on a public the icrime is still classified as in band,ors notinhighway  robbery or brigandage, It is highway robbery only when it can be proven that the maleactors  primarily organized organized themsel themselves ves or the purpose purpose o committing committing that crime. crime. In this instance, the prosecution was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that   petitioner was guilty o robbery in band. Although Ignacio did not see what petitioner was doing at the time o the incident since petitioner and his co-accused Salmeo were seated  beside the driver. His ailure to see what petitioner was doing during the robbery is justified  considering that the configuration o a jeepney bench makes it hard to see precisely what   passengers seated in the ront ront seat are doing. doing. Ignacio Ignacio was also able to to testiy that he saw both Salmeo Sal meo an and d petiti petitione onerr place place their their knives knives on the jeepney jeepney bench when when the polic policee fir fired ed a warni wa rning ng shot. shot. Petiti Petitione onerr initia initially lly oere oered d a deens deensee o alibi alibi beore beore the trial trial court. court. He abandoned this deense on appeal ater the trial court concluded that petitioner's alibi was not enough to overcome Ignacio's positive identification. argued beore the Court o Appeals

 

that while Ignacio might have seen him at the scene o the crime, there was no evidence o   petitioner's exact exact involvement involvement.. His changing deen deenses, ses, however, only show show the weakness o his arguments.  2. YES, the Trial Court erred erred in sentencing sentencing Amparo o indeterminate indeterminate prison term ranging ranging  rom our (4) years and two (2) months o prision correccional as minimum to ten (10) years o prision mayor maximum, as maximum. Under Article 294 (5) o the Revised Penal Code, as amended, the imposable penalty   or robbery is prision correccional correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its medium  period. Article 295 o the same Code, however, qualifies the penalty to its maximum period i  i   the robbery is committed by a band. Thus, the proper penalty is prision mayor in its maximum  period. Applying the Indeterminate Indeterminate Sentence Law, in the absence o any mitigating or  aggravating circumstance, circumstance, the minimum penalty shall be within the range o the penalty next  lower in degree, prision mayor minimum, or rom six (6) years and one (1) day to eight (8)  years. The maximum o the penalty shall be within the range o the medium period o prision mayor medium, or rom eight (8) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day to nine (9) years and our (4) months. The trial court imposed a penalty o our (4) years and two (2) months as minimum an and d ten (10) years years as maximu maximum, m, which which is not within within the prescrib prescribed ed range. range. Thus, th thee imposable penalty must be modified to six (6) years and one (1) day o prision mayor  minimum to nine (9) years and our (4) months o prision mayor medium as maximum. However, per the January 19, 2016,   letter o Bureau o Corrections P/Supt. I Roberto R. Rabo,  petitioner's maximum sentence imposed by the trial court had already expired upon adjustment o his sentence pursuant to Republic Act No. 10592. The Bureau o Corrections does not detail how the maximum sentence was adjusted. Nevertheless, the service o the modified penalty is rendered moot since the Bureau o Corrections certified that the adjusted   penalty was based on tthe he maximum penalty penalty imposed by the trial court. court. Thus, petitioner is ordered released unless he is detained or some other lawul cause.